prepare_dual_revoke

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that this is step 1 and returns a token; it does not state whether the revoke is already partially applied, whether the token expires, or what side effects the preparation may have.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: 'STEP 1 of 2' immediately signals the workflow, and 'returns a confirmation token' gives the key output. Every sentence earns its place, though it is short on richness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a two-step workflow with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must be self-sufficient. It not missing next step, token purpose, or any safety context, leaving the agent without enough information to safely complete the full revoke operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the three required parameters: base, product_id, and client_dual_id. The bare parameter names provide little context and the description adds nothing to clarify their meaning or usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource and purpose: it is the first step to revoke an unsettled dual investment and explicitly notes it returns a confirmation token. This distinguishes it from a full revoke and from investing tools, though it does not name the step-2 sibling or the confirmation action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives the core usage context: use this as the first step for revoking an unsettled dual investment. However, it does not state when not to use it, nor does it name the next tool or validate the follow-up step, so the agent must infer the workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.